Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 God's "shyness" makes ID hard to prove?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  01:19:24  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This seems like some kind of Poe which would better be consigned to the nonsense ghetto of Moonscape News than to SFN's prestigious Creation/Evolution Forum. But since it comes from the 'Tute, I think you'll understand why I'm posting about it here. And why it's so bizarre.

So, anyway, in a rambling theistic screed titled "A Quality of 'Shyness' in the Evidence for Intelligent Design" at the Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Reviews," contributor David Klinghoffer suggests that finding evidence for Intelligent Design is hindered by God's charming "shyness." I shit you not, that's what that motherfucker Klinghoffer is saying:
. . . For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

We try to explain to them that their materialism keeps them trotting in a closed logical circle where Darwinian evolution, the rule of blind, dumb forces over all nature, must explain life's history because only blind, dumb forces are allowed to be adduced in explanation of anything. Because that's "science"! They can never seem to quiet themselves down and open up to the possibility that science itself suggests other influences at play in life's development.

In truth, that evidence is subtle. It can't be heard over a lot of noise, the hubbub created chiefly by our fears that embracing unfashionable ideas may endanger our personal prestige.

. . .

Just what you might expect from a deity who would think up an idea like the Sabbath as the distinctive medium where he chooses to meet human beings up close. This is the designer, if you incline to traditional Western theistic belief. It's just who he is.
Oh, deer, isn't that convenient? By Klinghoffer, even lack of evidence for a Designer is now evidence for the subtlety of His work. That's just how His Shyness, the Lord God Almighty rolls. The Shy Guy in the Sky. Or as Klinghoffer puts it, "It's just who he is."

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/20/2012 01:21:01

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  08:43:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It sure reads like a Poe. But then it's from the Disco'tute, so why am I not surprised.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2012 :  18:49:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Other than it having passed muster with the Disco 'Tute, about the only hint one gets that Klinghoffer isn't writing a Poe is that it ain't very funny. As an expert, I know that if you're going to do a satire, you must incorporate some of the Basics of Humor, like timing, puns, and especially monkeys throwing feces. Klinghoffer uses none of that.

But Klinghoffer's piece of shit has to be the most ridiculously special case of special pleading I've ever read. No real Scienceman would accept such a thing.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/20/2012 18:53:25
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  01:58:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I neglected to post a biographical sketch of David Klinghoffer. Here's his snapshot bio from the Discovery Institute itself:
David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle and a contributor to Evolution News & Views. He is the author most recently of How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative (Random House, 2008.)#65533;#65533;é His previous books are Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History (Doubleday, 2005), The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism (Doubleday, 2003) and the spiritual memoir The Lord Will Gather Me In (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 1998), a National Jewish Book Award finalist. His forthcoming book is Shattered Tablets: What the Ten Commandments Reveal about American Culture and Its Discontents (Doubleday, 2006). A former literary editor of National Review magazine, Klinghoffer has written articles and reviews for the Los Angles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Commentary, and other publications. He lives on Mercer Island, Washington, with his wife and children.
[My emphasis above]

Note that Klinghoffer is more than a "contributor" as I'd said previously, but an actual Senior Fellow of the DI.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/21/2012 02:06:00
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  11:38:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Why are we carrying a separate discussion here when the theological explanation has been offered to show there is no reconciliation needed between god and evolution. This position was well articulated by evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, who is not a voice for the Discovery Institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pZRyVX9bY

The real issue are with evolutionist struggling to resolve differences within their own discipline.
You have:
1. Mechanistic theory of evolution.
2. Deterministic theory of evolution
3. Random chance theory.

David Klinghoffer is maintaining the moral position that is consistent with deterministic evolutionary theory. The respect for order and purpose. He is framing the context around central themes highlighting the difference between choice and random chance.

Even though his conclusions are based on theology he does not resit modern science and observes current evolutionary theory in light of advances made in molecular biology, sequencing of DNA and the irreducible complexity of organisms.

The quote David made was incorrect. Darwin said "an intellectually fulfilled atheist" It is unfortunate Dawkins, one of the leading voices for neo-Darwinism is using science to dispel religion when he should be using science to deal with the chaos within evolutionary theorist. Wearing Atheist on his forehead hardly makes him a better scientist unless you are a skeptic. It is the science, stupid that he should be admonished for.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  12:02:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

The real issue are with evolutionist struggling to resolve differences within their own discipline.
You have:
1. Mechanistic theory of evolution.
2. Deterministic theory of evolution
3. Random chance theory.
What are the differences between these things?
Wearing Atheist on his forehead hardly makes him a better scientist unless you are a skeptic.
No, nobody is claiming that Dawkins' atheism makes him a better scientist.
It is the science, stupid that he should be admonished for.
You want to admonish Dawkins for his science?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  12:05:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Why are we carrying a separate discussion here when the theological explanation has been offered to show there is no reconciliation needed between god and evolution. This position was well articulated by evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, who is not a voice for the Discovery Institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pZRyVX9bY

The real issue are with evolutionist struggling to resolve differences within their own discipline.
You have:
1. Mechanistic theory of evolution.
2. Deterministic theory of evolution
3. Random chance theory.

David Klinghoffer is maintaining the moral position that is consistent with deterministic evolutionary theory. The respect for order and purpose. He is framing the context around central themes highlighting the difference between choice and random chance.

Even though his conclusions are based on theology he does not resit modern science and observes current evolutionary theory in light of advances made in molecular biology, sequencing of DNA and the irreducible complexity of organisms.

The quote David made was incorrect. Darwin said "an intellectually fulfilled atheist" It is unfortunate Dawkins, one of the leading voices for neo-Darwinism is using science to dispel religion when he should be using science to deal with the chaos within evolutionary theorist. Wearing Atheist on his forehead hardly makes him a better scientist unless you are a skeptic. It is the science, stupid that he should be admonished for.
Are you just bullshitting us? Or are you also bullshitting yourself, jamalrapper? Because I found hardly a sentence above that wasn't clearly counter-factual.

I won't take the bother of going into details that aren't really worth discussing, but David Klinghoffer is god-deluded and so anti-science that he probably embarrasses voodoo practitioners. The example of his "shy God" hilarity should be enough to make that clear to anyone. All he's doing is making laughable excuses for the failure of ID to substantiate any of its points. And most humorously of all, he blames this failure on God's innate bashfulness. (If I were the least bit religious, I'd call that blasphemy.)

I'm amazed that even you would weigh in on this.

Oh, also, you have no concept of the real controversies in evolutionary theory. They no way resemble the three things you listed. But I have come to expect Creos of all types to misrepresent their opposition. It's strawman tactics, with a nasty dash of ad hom.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/21/2012 12:07:38
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  13:26:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am with you on the hilarity wagon Halfmooner. Why is my interpretation BS and yours hilarious? Even David is on the same hilarity wagon. Where is the controversy? You are the only one now out of step.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  23:40:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

I am with you on the hilarity wagon Halfmooner. Why is my interpretation BS and yours hilarious? Even David is on the same hilarity wagon. Where is the controversy? You are the only one now out of step.
I feel so lonely! Edited to add: But in terms of hilarity, one has to ask if people are "laughing with" or "laughing at." Klinghoffer is being laughed at. Are you?
1. Mechanistic theory of evolution.
2. Deterministic theory of evolution
3. Random chance theory.
Are the items on this undefined list supposed to be the only choices scientists have? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but modern evolutionary theory ("modern evolutionary synthesis" or "neo-Darwinian synthesis") can be summed up thusly:
". . . Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
I don't see anything like that in any of your three options, jamalrapper. You seem to be trying to force something like a false dilemma (except you give three choices, not the usual two).

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/21/2012 23:46:46
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  08:15:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Halfmooner wrote: I don't see anything like that in any of your three options, jamalrapper. You seem to be trying to force something like a false dilemma (except you give three choices, not the usual two).


True, there are two prevailing camps

1. Developmental Evolution as a Mechanistic evolutionary theory

The most distinctive contribution offered by DE to evolutionary biology, however, is the elucidation of the role of developmental mechanisms in the origin of evolutionary innovations. To date, explanations of evolutionary innovations have remained beyond the reach of classical evolutionary genetics, because such explanations require detailed information on the function of genes and the emergent developmental dynamics of their interactions with other genetic factors.


2. Deterministic theory.

A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms.


3 You forget Dawkins Random chance theory.

Already covered in Video from Miller.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pZRyVX9bY&feature=related

Dawkins wrote: The [Darwinian] universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.(Richard Dawkins).


The bases for random chance stems from the randomness of mutations which occur by chance, and are not predictable.

The devil is in the details. To sum up biological evolution as change in the properties of population organisms while ignoring random genetic drift and mechanism of evolution other than natural selection in light of molecular science, DNA etc. Is to over simplify evolutionary theories to the level of folklore, ignoring the Irreducible Complexity of organisms.
Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/22/2012 09:08:25
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  10:05:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jamalrapper:
The bases for random chance stems from the randomness of mutations which occur by chance, and are not predictable.

Yes, but natural selection is not random. And natural selection is a naturalistic process. There is no such thing as "random chance theory."

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  10:07:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Halfmooner wrote: I don't see anything like that in any of your three options, jamalrapper. You seem to be trying to force something like a false dilemma (except you give three choices, not the usual two).


True, there are two prevailing camps

1. Developmental Evolution as a Mechanistic evolutionary theory

The most distinctive contribution offered by DE to evolutionary biology, however, is the elucidation of the role of developmental mechanisms in the origin of evolutionary innovations. To date, explanations of evolutionary innovations have remained beyond the reach of classical evolutionary genetics, because such explanations require detailed information on the function of genes and the emergent developmental dynamics of their interactions with other genetic factors.


2. Deterministic theory.

A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms.


3 You forget Dawkins Random chance theory.

Already covered in Video from Miller.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pZRyVX9bY&feature=related

Dawkins wrote: The [Darwinian] universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.(Richard Dawkins).


The bases for random chance stems from the randomness of mutations which occur by chance, and are not predictable.

The devil is in the details. To sum up biological evolution as change in the properties of population organisms while ignoring random genetic drift and mechanism of evolution other than natural selection in light of molecular science, DNA etc. Is to over simplify evolutionary theories to the level of folklore, ignoring the Irreducible Complexity of organisms.
First, the "false dilemma" you admitted to is a logical fallacy.

Who are these determinists? I never heard of the idea as a serious school of modern evolutionary thought. Then, again, I'm no biologist.

The evolutionary development area is under increasing study. That's called Evo-Devo, I believe. I think that mostly, mechanisms of evolution are being studied, not the basics of evolutionary theory itself. Just as Mendel's genetics wasn't blown away in one blast by Watson and Crick's DNA discovery. But science advances, and there's no telling in advance where it will go.

Dawkins doesn't have a "chance theory." No way. Like all your quotes from scientists, your Dawkins quote was cherry-picked out of its context. He very clearly demolishes any such idea in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth. Chance mutation (and hybridization) have their roles, but the essence of evolution, not just Dawkins' idea of it, is that the key driving force of natural selection is the powerful synthesis of chance and the success of a very few of these mutations in enhancing survival. Nature kills the failures.

That last is the key, and this culls the purely random mutations that would be harmful by leading specification in utterly random directions. A "chance theory" would lead to weirder and weirder -- and less viable -- organisms. The synthesis of chance and survival/culling that results in adaptation is neither pure chance nor deterministic (nor even determinable in advance).

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/22/2012 10:35:28
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  10:22:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

To sum up biological evolution as change in the properties of population organisms while ignoring random genetic drift and mechanism of evolution other than natural selection in light of molecular science, DNA etc. Is to over simplify evolutionary theories to the level of folklore...
You really think Futuyma ignores those things? Mooner posted a summary, not a detailed explanation. Evolutionary theory is more complex than rocket science. Futuyma writes textbooks on it.
...ignoring the Irreducible Complexity of organisms.
Of which there are no examples.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  11:23:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
By the way. All three of the quotes that jamalrapper used as definitions are unsourced. It's not that they don't exist. They do. I checked. Would have been so difficult to provide links? Well... I guess so.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  14:27:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Again you guys have the foggiest idea about what Dawkins says in his work about random chance mutations and junk DNA. In short mutations are not directed, predictable or even the same across the population. Dawkins summations as voiced my Miller claims of a
Dawkins wrote: The [Darwinian] universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.(Richard Dawkins).


So the mechanics behind natural selection is random chance. Natural selection is presented as being a stable, gradual progression and therefor not random. But that again is not true. Natural selection and adaptation is not stable, uniform, predictable. You forget millions of species have died, become extinct in the process of evolution.

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection


There are models that calculate this randomness to demonstrate gene drift, complex evolutionary adaption.

You will have to use your own research material. I am not going to spoon feed you anymore. You are old enough to reach out and such my dick.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  14:35:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

So the mechanics behind natural selection is random chance.
Random mutation is not a mechanism. It is merely the source of variation upon which evolutionary mechanisms act.
Natural selection is presented as being a stable, gradual progression and therefor not random. But that again is not true.
You're right, it's a creationist strawman.
Natural selection and adaptation is not stable, uniform, predictable. You forget millions of species have died, become extinct in the process of evolution.
Nobody has forgotten that 99% of all species which have ever existed are now extinct.
There are models that calculate this randomness to demonstrate gene drift, complex evolutionary adaption.
Not according to Douglas Axe.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.59 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000